But maybe we could do something at societal level, because it does not seem normal to me that so many folks would chose to go irrational. We're doing something wrong. — Olivier5

Yes, we’re educating people poorly. Now every joe blow out there thinks he’s doing god’s work by “thinking for himself” and “questioning authority” — which sounds good until you see where this leads.

Something has gone wrong indeed. As Aristotle would say, something is out of balance.

Most people can now justify any belief based on the nonsense espoused by some in this thread: consensus of experts mean nothing— they’re all falling for group think, all establishment hacks. We, who are outside it all, will go with the righteous dissenters, the small minority who sees the REAL truth and who “they” try to suppress.

It’s a fantastic story for every charlatan and crackpot conspiracy theorist out there. So 97% of climate scientists agree? Who cares! That means nothing— don’t you know most scientists thought the earth was flat once? Etc.

Quite sad and quite scary.

don’t you know most scientists thought the earth was flat once? — Xtrix

Here's the response to that from a well-read member -- don't know if he's around anymore -- in a similarly-themed thread from four years ago. (It's over there to the left in your "recommended viewing".)

Not all scientific progress is progress of the revolutionary sort. There is also progress of the "puzzle solving" sort that happens during what Kuhn called episodes of normal science. Contemporary climate science is indeed "normal science". Scientists tend to be critical of individuals who seek to overthrow the consensus wholesale and promote a scientific revolution. This is not distressing. Before a scientific revolution has occurred, the proponents of the revolution often are seen by the mainstream scientists as fools or crackpots, and indeed this negative judgement is correct most of the time.

There is a very small minority of scientists who have a relevant expertise in climate science, who aren't crackpots, and who purport to be highly critical of the consensus. I am thinking of Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, S. Fred Singer, and a handful others. It is hard to see them as promoting a new revolutionary paradigm, though, since their arguments are very weak and all over the place. They all agree much more with the basic science endorsed by mainstream climate science than they do with each other; and their advocacy efforts mainly center on attempts to sow doubts throug highlighting cherry picked results. They do agree with each other on the ideology, though, since they all seem to be ultra-libertarians who believe government regulations and taxes to constitute the highest form of evil the world has ever seen. — Pierre-Normand

Yes, we’re educating people poorly. — Xtrix

Maybe. The PoMo genie is out of the bottle though, and it will be hard to put it back in and convince folks to believe the doxa.

It’s a fantastic story for every charlatan and crackpot conspiracy theorist out there. So 97% of climate scientists agree? Who cares! That means nothing— don’t you know most scientists thought the earth was flat once? Etc.

Quite sad and quite scary. — Xtrix

I think fear is one of the reasons why so many people lose their rationality nowadays: they are afraid of the future -- COVID, terrorism, climate change, make your pick -- and they break under the pressure of fear.

And you are right that seeing people go crazy and jettison their rationality, this adds to the fear of the rest of us.

I get that. It's an interesting point, a reasonable point, but what kind of point is it? — Srap Tasmaner

Fair question. It comes down to this...

a shocking failure of citizenship — Srap Tasmaner

I could give a statistical argument about hedging against uncertainty, but the stats doesn't seem to be going down well, so maybe an appeal to the gut. Does it not strike you a seriously wrong to put a rational or ethical imperative for a population to all believe one single thing, all follow one single solution (that of the majority of experts)? Putting aside all arguments about the greater long-term pay-offs of hedged bets, just as a gut response, you don't find something icky about that?

Despite the repeated attempts to conflate minority expert opinion with dissenting opinion in general (like Alex Jones is an expert in anything!), we're not talking about a lack of constraint on solutions - they have to meet the threshold of being reasonable, well-supported, evidence-based, peer reviewed etc. But once that threshold has been met, to demand that the range of options is further narrowed down until only one 'most-supported' solution remains which everyone has a duty to believe on pain of being held immoral/irrational... Well, if it's just me who finds that quite repulsive, then maybe I should start again with the statistical arguments.

If it turned out that 97% had ties to the fossil fuel industry would it still make sense to go with the majority? — Isaac


Of course not. — Xtrix

Then you agree that other factors (like conflict of interest) are more important than majority support. Now you have to show what mechanisms exist to make it impossible (or less likely) that a majority on any one question could be the result of any of these other factors, of which conflict of interest is just one.

This isn’t a ridiculous contortion— people simply go with one or the other “expert,” for many reasons — Xtrix

Then it is a contortion to say that they have no other information. How can they use "a number of reasons" yet also have "no other information"?

I’d say the WHO, the CDC, the AMA, etc, represent a majority of experts. This is all most laypeople know. So is it right to trust the CDC? — Xtrix

No. Not necessarily.

1. For a start you listed three organisations there so when they disagree (as on the issue of boosters, for example), why pick the CDC?

2. None of these institutions is free from political, corporate and ideological influence, whilst that's very unlikely to lead them to say something false, it's well within reason (in fact demonstrable historically) that it leads them to choose one strategy over another even if both are equally viable.

3. All of these institutions produce strategies, they are not publications of science. Journals publish science, institutions interpret it and formulate strategies based on it. Their strategy is not science, it is not subject to peer review, it's statistical methods are not scrutinised and it is never experimentally falsified. The rational incentives to prefer science over guesswork do not apply to the strategies of these institutions, it applies to the science on which they base those strategies. that science is not all in agreement...which leads to...

4. Only one strategy can be advocated by any given institution. They have to decide, even if the science is 51/49 in favour of it. Public health policy is a very blunt instrument, it must appeal to the lowest common denominator and achieve it's goal despite a heterogeneous, often recalcitrant, often downright idiotic population. Again, public health policy is not science. Following it does not have the same logical imperative as following science would have.

the overwhelming evidence that supports one theory (which is usually why there is such a consensus) over others (e.g., evolution vs creationism). — Xtrix

So you're saying that when there's two competing theories, there is always overwhelming evidence in favour of one? You're essentially denying underdetermination?

So, if you deny that underdetermination is possible, then the next question, I suppose, is what do you think is happening to the minority of scientists who dissent? Take Peter Doshi, for example - he dissented from the view that the vaccine should have been given full FDA approval. He's a fully qualified professor of medicine and editor of the world's leading medical journal, so there can be no question about his status as expert. So what happened to make his view wrong (or more likely to be wrong)?

Did he make a mistake in reasoning? - No, people argued their counter case and he maintained his disagreement, so any error in reasoning would have been obvious at that point.

Did he miss some evidence? - No, likewise the counter-argument would have contained any missing evidence and he would have corrected his position accordingly. He didn't

Was he ideologically, politically or financially motivated? - Undoubtedly, yes. But how more so that those holding the majority view? All of them have political affiliations, all have employers, funders and future consultancy work to think about, and all have a belief system which might bias their interpretation of evidence.

Did he just lack intelligence or some 'spark' which the majority have? - Possibly, but again, why would the majority have this property in greater quantity than any given minority?

So. If you reject underdeterminism (which to me, and most philosophers of science, is the most obvious explanation) then what is your alternative explanation?

Second opinions, corroboration of witnesses, replication of experiments, etc — Xtrix

Yes, but you've given no evidence at all that the theories supported by the majority of scientists have a greater quantity of these properties than theories supported only by a minority.

I'm just correcting Xtrix's first error mistaking variance in a population with variance in a stratified cohort. — Isaac


In fact that’s exactly what you’re doing, which I pointed out several posts ago. — Xtrix

Explain. In what way have I mistaken variance in a population with variance in a stratified cohort?

Again, public health policy is not science. Following it does not have the same logical imperative as following science would have. — Isaac

There are better reasons to follow public policy than to follow "science", which never tells you what to do next anyway so you couldn't follow it even if you wanted to. Public policy is (in this case at least) based on science but takes into consideration social goods as well. If you care for the people around you, you should follow public policy. It's only if you are anti-social that you shouldn't.

If you care for the people around you, you should follow public policy. It's only if you are anti-social that you shouldn't. — Olivier5

:up:

Yes, but you've given no evidence at all that the theories supported by the majority of scientists have a greater quantity of these properties than theories supported only by a minority. — Isaac

So it's not entirely rational to adhere to the prevailing scientific view. It's weight comes from the fact that conservative people (in the best sense of the word) want a conservative opinion. As Xtrix demonstrates, there is virtue attached to it.

This is ancient and maybe partly a matter of cultural selection?

Yes, but you've given no evidence at all that the theories supported by the majority of scientists have a greater quantity of these properties than theories supported only by a minority. — Isaac

Do you disagree with vaccination as the only workable strategy out of this situation? Do you agree that the vaccines are safe and effective? Do you agree that the more people there are vaccinated the less our hospital systems will be overwhelmed by covid patients and the less likely there will be variants? If you agree with all of these and also agree that in a community facing an emergency it is a moral imperative that everyone should play their part, just as they are expected to in a military campaign, then what reason could you have for refusing to be vaccinated?

a rational or ethical imperative for a population to all believe one single thing, all follow one single solution — Isaac

I wrote a long rambling response about the American culture war, but I'm replacing it with this:

Yes, orthodoxy is both dangerous and repugnant. I don't cotton to it.

Recommending again In Search of a Flat Earth.

Public policy is (in this case at least... — Olivier5

...is exactly the issue in question.

If you can't make a case that one should always follow public policy (which no one in their right mind would), then the fact that some advice is public policy has no bearing on whether one should follow it does it? If it's good advice, follow it; if it's bad advice, don't.

If you care for the people around you, you should follow public policy. — Olivier5

Only if public policy does, in fact, on this occasion, pursue social goods based on sound science.

You've provided no mechanism by which we can distinguish the occasions when public policy is based on science and pursues public goods from the occasions when it is not, rendering the advice to follow public policy completely useless.

So it's not entirely rational to adhere to the prevailing scientific view. — frank

Given underdetermination it is rational both to adhere to the prevailing scientific view and to adhere to dissenting scientific views. So long as the views meet the threshold for rational views (things like evidence, lack of COI, peer review etc) then it's rational to adhere to them. It's not rational to adhere to the view of Alex Jones or Donald Trump because they're not experts, and have obvious ideological conflicts of interest. Like...

conservative people (in the best sense of the word) want a conservative opinion — frank

Yes, so there's definitely an ideological bias in favour of theories which support the status quo, but there's also the draw of the 'maverick genius'... I'm not seeing the virtue though, you might have explain that one.

If you agree with all of these and also agree that in a community facing an emergency it is a moral imperative that everyone should play their part, just as they are expected to in a military campaign, then what reason could you have for refusing to be vaccinated? — Janus

I understand the link, but I went through my reasons for not getting vaccinated quite exhaustively in the other Coronavirus threads. With only a last minute exception they received nothing but vitriol and cliché both unrelated to the actual arguments put forth (standard fare nowadays unfortunately). There's only so much of that it is worth my while enduring on any given topic. I find everyone's responses very interesting, but not such as to be worth just any price.

So here, I'm really just interested in this idea that majorities are more likely to be right (in certain cohorts).

Sorry to cut your line of questioning short. Briefly (if it helps), the answer to all your first questions is no, mainly because the questions are too broad in a complex situation to give a 'yes'.

I wrote a long rambling response about the American culture war, but I'm replacing it with this: — Srap Tasmaner

Possibly wise, though I'm sure it would have been interesting.

Yes, orthodoxy is both dangerous and repugnant. I don't cotton to it. — Srap Tasmaner

That's basically what I'm saying here. There are (quite rightly) social norms which set thresholds for the sorts of beliefs it's acceptable to have and act on, beyond those, diversity should be the aim, not the enemy.

You've provided no mechanism by which we can distinguish the occasions when public policy is based on science and pursues public goods from the occasions when it is not, rendering the advice to follow public policy completely useless. — Isaac

Neither did you, and yet I am quite certain that you understand the value of having a public policy and of trying to enforce it.

I am also quite certain that science never ever told anyone where to go next, reason for which it would be impossible to "follow it", as you wrongly assume, while it is at the very least possible to follow public policy. I would further argue that it is being a good citizen to follow public policy, especially when this policy aims to save lives in times of emergency. It's called being disciplined.

In my country, public policy generally pursues the public good. At least that is the general perception. It might not attain it; it might damage the public good here or there; one might disagree with how it defines the public good; and of course there are exceptions, i.e. cases where a policy is crafted to benefit or protect private interest, which is bad. There are also token policies, i.e. policies that are not really meant to be implemented, but mere gesticulation. In this case the policy is dishonest, it does not really pursue the public good; it just pretends to.

But by and large, French policies are seen as bona fide aiming to protect citizens' interest, which is a condition sine qua non for their applicability. In other words, a social contract still exists in France, but it's eroding, and IF this public trust in public policy was to disappear, then our republic herself would disappear. A republic is literally a Res Publica; it depends on public trust to exist.

I've lived and worked in places where public trust had evaporated, such as DRC. I don't want this for my country. And if I need to take a shot of a vaccine, the usefulness of which might not be totally established, in order to protect or rebuild public trust, I will personally do so.

It's not just about statistics.

science never ever told anyone where to go next, reason for which it would be impossible to "follow it", as you wrongly assume — Olivier5

Where have I assumed this?

In my country, public policy generally pursues the public good. — Olivier5

...

it might damage the public good here or there — Olivier5

cases where a policy is crafted to benefit or protect private interest, which is bad — Olivier5

token policies, i.e. policies that are not really meant to be implemented, but mere gesticulation. In this case the policy is dishonest — Olivier5

... So public policy pursues the public good, except when it doesn't. Difficult to disagree with that.

I need to take a shot of a vaccine, the usefulness of which might not be totally established, in order to protect or rebuild public trust, I will personally do so. — Olivier5

What an odd sentiment. If people don't trust public policy to be in their interests, how does blindly following it regardless help to restore that trust? Surely if trust in public institutions has been eroded that's a problem the public institutions in question need to solve. Are you suggesting the problems in the DRC would have been solved if people would only have just unquestioningly done what Kabila told them?

There are (historical) case studies regarding pandemic protocols. I recall coming across some out there. They tend to inform (history is a great teacher, Santayana comes to mind). Some measure of common sense isn't to be scoffed at. The evidence is the authority here more so than some (unweighted) "he-said-she-said", the truth of the SARS-CoV-2/pandemic matter more so than some sort of radical cultural relativism. Would be kind of neat if the virus could just be argued away though. :smile:

There are (historical) case studies regarding pandemic protocols. I recall coming across some out there. They tend to inform — jorndoe

Ah, so there are possibly some historical cases which you can't fully recall but which might have tended to show something about responses to pandemics?

Well, what reasonable person could maintain an alternative position under the weight of that kind of evidence? I concede.

Where have I assumed this? — Isaac

public health policy is not science. Following it does not have the same logical imperative as following science would have. — Isaac

Science doesn't tell you what you ought to do. It just tells you what is.

If people don't trust public policy to be in their interests, how does blindly following it regardless help to restore that trust? — Isaac

I'm just doing my bit, considering the moral duty, in a time of crisis, to support the community I live in. At the very least, I am trying not to undermine trust by my own behavior.

Are you suggesting the problems in the DRC would have been solved if people would only have just unquestioningly done what Kabila told them? — Isaac

No. I am suggesting that public trust is the only thing that binds us together in societies. Protecting it, when and where it exists, is important to avoid chaos, especially for one who shares this trust, which is my case, and especially in times of crisis.

So it's not entirely rational to adhere to the prevailing scientific view. — frank


Given underdetermination it is rational both to adhere to the prevailing scientific view and to adhere to dissenting scientific views. — Isaac

If we can't rationally pick between them, something irrational has to decide. It's personal bias, isnt it?

Some political theorists believe there's a growing hatred toward educated people among those who feel disenfranchised. They'll go with dissenting voices: the crazy doctor who says we should take ivermectin.

The bias toward mainstream scientific views can be scientism, or mistaking engineering feats for proof of some scientific theory.

I'm not seeing the virtue though, you might have explain that one. — Isaac

That's the scientism. Science where there is no Church.

Incidentally, if you're interested, Johns Hopkins have published a few essays on the subject. The broad conclusion... compassion, investment in healthcare, education, dealing with inequality... just about everything that is being avoided in discussion here in preference for just pillorying people who don't take vaccines.
...

Science doesn't tell you what you ought to do. It just tells you what is. — Olivier5

I see. 'Follow' doesn't only mean to take instruction from.

At the very least, I am trying not to undermine trust by my own behavior. — Olivier5

Yes. That was the bit I wanted you to explain the rationale for. How does blindly doing what they say repair the trust in those for whom it has been lost, I can't see what process you imagine taking place?

I am suggesting that public trust is the only thing that binds us together in societies. Protecting it, when and where it exists, is important to avoid chaos — Olivier5

I agree. So again, how does blindly doing as you're told protect this trust? You already trust your government, it's other people who don't, and they have good reason to not. So how is you doing as you're told helping to restore their trust? Did the problems with the DRC reside in Kabila or the populace?

If we can't rationally pick between them, something irrational has to decide. It's personal bias, isnt it? — frank

Yes, that's basically what I've been saying. We choose the theories which best fit our favoured social narrative. If we're reasonable people we'll discard anything which is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary (even at the expense of our favoured narrative if need be). But anything supported by a genuine expert without obvious conflicts of interest automatically qualifies as not being overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary.

That's the scientism. Science where there is no Church. — frank

I don't believe in such a thing. There's always a 'church'.

How does blindly doing what they say repair the trust in those for whom it has been lost — Isaac

That's not what I am trying to do. As I explained, I am trying NOT TO UNDERMINE trust. I'm not trying to actively shore it up, but I don't want to contribute to its fall.

:grin: Could always take a look , like Santayana suggested, whatever (medical) lessons learned, historical case-studies, all that? Doesn't have any dependency on me. By the way, "uneven" distribution is a problem. Treating others with dignity, trying to dispel fears, educating and keeping dis/mis/malinformation in check, ... (y)

That's not what I am trying to do. As I explained, I am trying NOT TO UNDERMINE trust. I'm not trying to actively shore it up, but I don't want to contribute to its fall. — Olivier5

Holding a government to account according to high standards of transparency and freedom from corporate influence is traditionally held to be a mechanism for increasing trust, not undermining it.

Yes, that's basically what I've been saying. — Isaac

You're right.

That's the scientism. Science where there is no Church. — frank


I don't believe in such a thing. There's always a 'church'. — Isaac

I just meant that science doesn't really offer soapboxes to preach from. People make science into a church to back their misanthropy or what have you.

Did the problems with the DRC reside in Kabila or the populace? — Isaac

Good question. The short answer is both.

The story of how Zaïre / DRC became a failed state is best told in "Dancing in the Glory of Monsters", by Jason K. Stearns. The title is a quote from Kabila the elder, the limp guerillero himself. When he reached Kinshasa at the head of his group, freeing the nation from the grip of Mobutu, he made a speech in which he told the Congolese that they shared the guilt of the Mobutu regime, because they had done nothing to oppose it. Instead, he told them, they had been dancing in the glory of the monster.

Needless to say, Mobutu is not the only monster in this story. Hence the plural in the title.

Holding a government to account according to high standards of transparency and freedom from corporate influence is traditionally held to be a mechanism for increasing trust, not undermining it. — Isaac

You can do that and still take your shot.

they shared the guilt of the Mobutu regime, because they had done nothing to oppose it. — Olivier5

Interesting. To what extent did a lack of trust figure in their complicity, do you think?

You can do that and still take your shot. — Olivier5

Yes, and you can do it without taking your shot too, making the taking of your shot entirely inconsequential to the project.

Trust in institutions which have lost it can only be restored by a change in the structure or behaviour of that institution. We, as citizens, if we want such trustworthiness, ought to campaign for those changes by holding those institutions to account when they fail to meet the high standards we expect of them. Whether we follow their advice or not in the meantime is immaterial.

I just meant that science doesn't really offer soapboxes to preach from. People make science into a church to back their misanthropy or what have you. — frank

I see, yes. Makes sense now.